Posted on 12/20/2005 7:54:38 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
Correct. And as I pointed out, millions were poured into searching for super symmetry before ST made any falsifiable predictions.
And, like them, did not get labels stamped on high school physics book in their favor, until they were (or are) verified to the satisfaction of the relevant scientific community.
I have no such argument, and neither does science. No science will ever demonstrate that God doesn't guide each little sperm to it's pre-ordaned egg by indetectable, supernatural means. Science is only concerned about proximate natural causes that can be demonstrated by natural evidence. No claim to exclusivity is intended or required.
while maintaining your position of ambiguity about the meaning of life and intelligence. You cannot explain what natural processes are required for intelligence, and how they work together, because no one has accomplished this.
Did I not ask you to quit dodging all over the intellectual landscape, and stick to your point? This argument is not about the nature of intelligence, nor is it about "the meaning of life".
This again underscores how you are predisposed to reaching the conclusions you prefer without regard to evidence. That, friend, is not scientific.
Did I not ask you to lay off the smarmy, stupid sarcasm, as well? Are you just an endless post-bot with no memory and no capacity to control yourself in polite company? The evidence for natural abiogensis started piling up definitively in the year 2000, when it caused the tree of life to be re-drawn to branch at the root--a not insignificant scientific event.
You seem to be arguing profusely against using observable phenomena as a tool for explaining how life forms
Well, that's about as obtuse as one can get. The evidence for natural abiogenesis is quite obviously observable. Karl Woese observed it, published it, saw the work duplicated along other genome lines for obviously falsifiable verification, and now we know that the most primitive lifeforms, now grouped into Domains, could not have had parent/child relationships, as we understand such things in the evolutionary story. This is pretty compelling evidence of a pre-cellular, pre-DNA--ie. pre-life world that spawned cellular, DNA based life.
This is not one whit different, in basic logic and use of evidence, from how we go about verifying that there was a pre-mammalian world full of dinosaurs, an early history to the universe, or an early history of the earth, featuring just one continent. How much of science are you willing to discard on your loopy, crackpot theory that there's a king-x on looking at historical data?
Are you arguing? It appears more like a personal complaint since there is no reason to your point here
You're fracking bloody right it's a personal compaint, I started arguing with you in good faith, because your camoflage is very artful. Now you have cycled me over the same ground a dozen times or more--your disclaimer that you were somehow moved by me into some new position regarding the validity of historical data being a pretty good case in point for your subtle bait-&-hook dissembling.
Fool me once, shame on you--fool me a dozen times, shame on me.
"Cite me an example."
I already mentioned that artificial muscles are not as strong as real ones. Aren't you aware that scientists are trying to duplicate various bodily functions artificially as a tool of medicine? This has gone one for many years.
Artificial hearts duplicate the functions of the circulatory system. Artificial skin duplicates the function of real skin.
Do you have a point?
"Was your body designed to change tires?"
It is capable of it.
"Do you think the ability to change tires is not a survival trait?"
It is helpful sometimes. Other times it could get you killed.
"Was your body designed to lift and hurl small objects? Do you do it as well as an automatic pitching machine?"
My body does not pitch as well as a pitching machine can. My body is capable of pitching but is not a pitching machine. No machine has yet duplicated the functionality of the human body over all. You would have to make many machines to duplicate this functionality and even then it might not happen. The need for many machines to duplicate the functionality of the body demonstrates that the body is more efficient than the machines.
However, this point is not critical anyway.
Besides, according to your logic, it should not matter because a pitching machine is just performing a natural process, just like the body. Therefore you should not try to draw any conclusions about whether biological systems are more efficient.
"And, like them, did not get labels stamped on high school physics book in their favor, until they were (or are) verified to the satisfaction of the relevant scientific community."
Give me a break. String theory is discussed in high school, and has been for a long time. And no one from your camp ever screamed bloody murder about it. Well, until recently, that is:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1574644/posts
"I have no such argument [that intelligence is an exclusively natural process,]..."
You did already. You claimed that my test, in which life is assembled intelligently, would be merely an instance of natural processes causing life.
I think I am starting to get the picture. Whatever I say, you contradict regardless of what it is or whether it is true. It doesn't even matter if you contradict yourself in the process.
You did already. You claimed that my test, in which life is assembled intelligently, would be merely an instance of natural processes causing life.
That does not demonstrate that God's hand was not involved. It is not an either/or proposition.
I think I am starting to get the picture. Whatever I say, you contradict regardless of what it is or whether it is true. It doesn't even matter if you contradict yourself in the process.
I think I get the picture. Whatever I say, you will find some dimwitted way to spawn yet another half-baked argument going off on yet another tangent.
String theory has it's first big falsifiable test scheduled for 2010. It is also not, by courtroom decision, involving perjurious attempts by creationists to fly a religeous tenate into the science classroom under false colors, in defiance of the 1st amendment. As the court wisely noted, nobody would be even having this discussion if it weren't for the Discovery Institute, and their published stealth strategy.
Are, or are not, laboratories part of the natural world? What you need, to have some traction, is a way to produce life in a lab that somehow suggests the same pathway can't exist in the wilds. How will you do that? How will you concoct a test that will be inherently unduplicatable by nature, given a virtually infinite budget and lab space? No matter how stupid and lazy the lab techs are. The constraints on your imagined lab experiment are insufficient for it to demonstate what you want to claim it demonstrates when it fails. It could fail because only God can make a tree, or it could fail because it takes a whale of a long time to make a tree. There is no metric that makes either of these explanations more or less likely.
OK, overall, got it. Like your imaginary attempt to create "life" from scratch, so long as I don't pin down what life means...we have once again reached the point where vague handwaving saves your bacon.
You would have to make many machines to duplicate this functionality and even then it might not happen. The need for many machines to duplicate the functionality of the body demonstrates that the body is more efficient than the machines.
Uh huh...I forgot to add to "vague", wordy, officious and pointless,...I absolutely agree that the human body is the very best thing there is at being a human body.
However, this point is not critical anyway.
No shinola. How about the next time, you figure this out before we spend ten paragraphs on an irrelevant argument.
Yes, it does, it needs to be hostile to the tenates of specific religeous seeking a pulpit using public money, in an institution that has a legally enforced virtual monopoly on our children's minds for 8 hours a day.
Second, evolutionists have long contended that science cannot be measured by its harmony with the Bible, but now they are arguing that harmony with the Bible must somehow make something unscientific. Perhaps you would not argue these points, but this case seems to rest on such reasoning.
No, as usual, you aren't listening very carefully. I made quite a deal in this thread out the fact that ID is science, of a sort, much as crop circles are science, of a sort. ID is considered likely by a pretty fair percentage of working scientists--however, few think it is a science yet. It is science, of sorts--it just isn't very good, or very reliable science.
The judge based the decision (supposedly) on the improper motives of the ID promoters.
Partly. The judge's decision is also based on the widespread recognition that this just wouldn't be an issue up for debate were it not for fundamentalist christian creationists.
Because the real things failed, in some manner, right?
Do you have a point?
Do you?
Is this a hoop to jump through? If so, I guess falsifiability means whatever you want it to mean.
No matter how obtuse you manage to remain about it, there is no significant functional difference regarding falsifiability, between data you collected 10 minutes ago with a telescope, or an oscilloscope, or unearthed 10 minutes ago with a trowel and spade. The essential thing about the data that makes for a falsifiable experiment, is that you didn't have the data 10 minutes ago, with which to rig the experiment--regardless of how long ago the data was generated. This isn't exactly rocket science--why are we still talking about it? Do you like looking this dense?
I said that already. In about 8 different ways.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.